ODC 2010

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the definition of disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) was not discriminatory and did not conflict with the Human Rights Code.

The appellant argued that because he met the broader definition of disability under the Code, denying him benefits under the narrower ODSPA definition was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ODSPA is a special program designed to ameliorate the conditions of a disadvantaged group under s. 14(1) of the Code.

The government is not required to extend benefits to every conceivable member of a broad class, and providing benefits to the most disadvantaged is not discriminatory.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her child a Crown ward.

The motion judge had found no genuine issue for trial regarding whether it was in the child's best interests to return to the mother's care, given the mother's health issues and inability to provide a stable environment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of the Society's efforts to assist the family and no adequate plan from the mother to care for the child.

Fresh evidence filed on appeal did not raise a triable issue.

The appellant builder appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision awarding the respondent homeowners $11,234 to replace ceramic tiles that did not comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The parties consented to an order setting aside the Tribunal's decision and substituting an award of $4,000 plus costs.

The Divisional Court approved the settlement, noting that the Tribunal erred in effectively ordering specific performance rather than assessing damages based on the floor's useful life or the cost of stiffening it, as required by prior jurisprudence.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board that quashed the expulsion of a student for off-school marijuana use.

The Tribunal had found insufficient evidence of a nexus between the student's off-school activities and the school climate.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the moot application, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable and correct in its interpretation of the Education Act.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which dismissed their claims against Tarion Warranty Corporation for alleged defects in their new home, including foundation issues, basement moisture, and squeaky floors.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Court found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of civil engineers and construction managers, that the home was built in accordance with the design and not too close to the water table.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application to evict the tenants.

The landlord had applied for eviction under s. 51(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to conduct extensive renovations.

The Board dismissed the application on the basis that the landlord failed to establish it required the unit for demolition.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the application based on renovations.

The Court substituted its own decision, granting the eviction order on consent terms, including three months' rent compensation.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) concerning the registration of a real estate broker and brokerage.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to make the necessary threshold determinations under s. 10(1)(a) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 before ordering remedies.

Furthermore, the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the registration of the respondent as a salesperson, which was not an issue before it.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a rehearing.

The Court also provided guidance for the rehearing, noting that the civil standard of proof is a balance of probabilities and that interfering with trust accounts is inherently wrongful.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to quash an Assessment Order to the Divisional Court.

The respondent argued the order was final and outside the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court agreed the order was final as it disposed of a substantive right.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding that the union violated the collective agreement by threatening a full-time firefighter with union charges if he accepted a volunteer position with the respondent town.

The arbitrator held that the union president's actions interfered with the town's right to use volunteer firefighters and that the union could not rely on its constitution to derogate from its obligations under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which allowed the insured to rescind a settlement agreement.

The Director's Delegate found that the Settlement Disclosure Notice did not properly describe the benefits available to the self-employed insured and was improperly signed by the insurer's counsel rather than hand-signed by the insurer.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate's decision regarding the inadequate description of benefits was reasonable, as the notice failed to account for the insured's self-employment losses.

Although the court found the Director's Delegate's reasoning regarding the signature requirement to be unreasonable, the application for judicial review was dismissed based on the inadequate benefits description.

The respondent was successful in defeating the appellant's motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a stay motion.

The respondent sought costs of $8,026.68 for the motion and additional costs for the appeal that was commenced as of right before the appellant realized leave was required.

The court noted the underlying action was a Rule 76 claim for $22,000 in unpaid rent, making the costs claimed disproportionate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the costs of the motion at $3,700 and the costs of the abandoned appeal at $1,800.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal regarding permanent disability entitlements under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in capping the maximum permanent disability supplement at the amount of a full old age security pension under section 147(8), asserting that the calculation formulas in sections 147(9) and (10) should prevail.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's interpretation accorded with the plain language of the statute and gave meaning to all provisions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal that reduced his temporary partial disability benefits.

The Tribunal had applied a policy requiring partially disabled workers to engage in a self-directed vocational rehabilitation program to demonstrate reasonable efforts to return to work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in interpreting the legislation.

The court found the Tribunal's decision to reduce benefits due to inadequate effort to seek employment was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada's Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and a 30-day suspension.

The misconduct involved five incidents of incivility and discrimination against a client.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Appeal Panel's decision reasonable, including its conclusion that the Hearing Panel had authority under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to correct its penalty order.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on an appeal from a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada Appeal Panel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the transcript of the appellant's examination in a civil suit against his former counsel was not relevant to any issue on appeal, and his affidavit regarding the impact of the discipline and his subsequent conduct was not determinative of the reasonableness of the penalty.

A reporter sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records of communications among Ministry of the Attorney General officials regarding an ongoing, high-profile criminal prosecution of police officers.

The Ministry refused, relying on the exclusion in s. 65(5.2) for records relating to an ongoing prosecution.

An adjudicator ordered the records produced for an inquiry, interpreting the exclusion narrowly to require a 'substantial connection' and limiting it to documents in the Crown brief.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the adjudicator erred in law by reading in a substantial connection requirement and that the exclusion applied broadly to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal proceedings.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent interim costs of $35,000 in an oppression remedy action under the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that s. 249(4) of the Act does not grant jurisdiction to order an individual to pay interim costs.

The court also found that the motion judge erred in concluding that the corporate appellants were affiliated with the target corporation, as the evidence did not support a finding of control other than by way of security.

The order for interim costs was set aside.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to amend their statement of claim to add a conspiracy claim.

The motion to amend was served before the expiry of the limitation period but was not heard until after it had expired due to inordinate delay.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the parties' rights crystallized on the date the motion was served.

Since the motion was served within the limitation period and the proposed amended pleading was sufficient in law, the amendment was permitted despite the delay.

The applicant sought judicial review of two 2004 decisions denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

He had failed to appeal the decisions to the Social Benefits Tribunal within the statutory time limit.

In 2008, he reapplied with new medical evidence and was granted benefits, but sought to have the grant made retroactive to 2004.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review due to the applicant's five-year delay and his failure to pursue his statutory right of appeal.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering payment of rent arrears.

The tenants argued that the landlord used an alias on the written tenancy agreement, which they claimed breached section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act and suspended their obligation to pay rent.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants were aware of the landlord's true identity, making the use of an alias a mere technicality that did not affect their ultimate liability for rent.

The court concluded the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and manifestly devoid of merit.

The appeal was quashed and the automatic stay of eviction was lifted.